Originally Posted by
The Rusted One
Please; the typical sign of someone who isn't doing as well as they thought - the accusation that the opponent has no leg to stand on, and really should give up now. That would make it easier for you, I know that - only thing is, I haven't lost. I haven't struggled to argue against you at any point; you've struggled, as appears obvious in your statement that "I've lost" - particularly evidenced in the fact that in these debates nobody loses. I've not once said you've lost. Funny that you feel the need to resort to saying it of me.
Okay, I'm getting sick of the half-insults. That includes Sorovis' insults. I'm guessing you're both irritated at each other for repeating yourselves, but let's debate a bit more respectfully.
Homosexuality is in animals. You tried to argue that it wasn't, and tried to tell us it wasn't natural. Obviously, given that it appears in animals, it is. Sure, some animals eat members of their own species. Some peoples do too. Just because we don't because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not natural for those that do. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, either - because obviously, our morals are not absolute. Our morals, however, are built upon the premise that it's okay as long as you don't hurt anyone else, or harm them against their will - at which point, cannibalism does become less acceptable. But how does homosexuality hurt someone? Does it hurt you, someone totally unrelated to the situation? No. Does it hurt either of the willing partners in a given relationship? No. Does it hurt anyone they know? No; none of these things have any more positive an answer than the same questions of heterosexuality. You fail to make any point that I cannot refute - but then, that's been your problem all along, and that is only reinforced with your opening statements.
First off, some heterosexuality can harm people involved (pre-marital or extra-marital sex) And Sorovis only made the one point about some behavior not being homosexual. Both before and after that point he agreed with it.
Nobody, and I've said this before, is using animals as an example of how we should live - they are using them as examples of how your claims that homosexuality is not natural are false and flawed - and I note that you have now changed this, because you can't argue that animals don't exhibit homosexuality. Your entire argument, really, is as flawed as this.
Again, tired of the insults, and even if it's natural for animals doesn't necessarily make it natural for humans.
So, you really haven't been listening. Interesting that you assert I haven't and turn around and prove the statement is true of only yourself. Had you listened, you would have found that I gave my own case as an example - that being, had I not become attracted to a specific guy, I wouldn't have known that I was bisexual. Just because before I had no solid proof doesn't mean that I wasn't bisexual - because obviously I was. The same applies to these people - they can be bisexual, but think they're straight, as long as they don't become sexually attracted to someone of their own gender; at that point, it is made clear to them that they aren't straight, but are bisexual. It's not a difficult thing to understand, although obviously again I've overestimated your capabilities.
I never quite understood your point in this statement. It sounds like you're saying you'd have never known you were bisexual had that one guy not been there. I would think you'd be attracted to several guys at one time, just like I (a heterosexual guy) am attracted to multiple girls at one time. (some more than others)
When you claim that I have no evidence, you commit yourself to appearing hypocritical. You've already done this before, of course - but now you have no saving grace. You're a hypocrite. You're yet to give me any proof that heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality not. Gender is genetically predetermined - but it doesn't necessarily dictate sexuality. Some men are asexual. Some women are, too. Are they commiting a sin by not loving anyone? Are they choosing not to love, or are they just not capable? They say they're not capable. That's not a choice. They're a certain gender, and yet don't love anyone of the same or opposite genders. According to your logic, they must be choosing. They must be sinners. They must be immoral. But they're not. Your argument is fundamentally flawed, but that's not the only fundamental thing about your argument, is it?
Sorovis isn't hypocritical. He's presented evidence. It's just that you have called his evidence biased. I'm not really saying it wasn't, but it's evidence none-the-less. You haven't even presented biased information. If you sent some scientific evidence, even if it was by something called the National association for the advancement of homosexuality, it would at least be evidence. We might claim it was more ridiculous or biased than ours. If there are no grounds for that claim, then we might just agree that since both pieces of evidence are biased, and they contradict each other that neither are credible. However, until you present evidence, we must assume that you could not find even biased evidence saying homosexuality was genetic.
Please; you think the sign of intelligence is war? You must see George W. Bush as the pinnacle of human brain power then - a sad, sad prospect if true. And again, when are we saying, "hey look, animals do it! Let's do it too!"? We're not. We're saying, "look, animals do things - therefore, if humans do them too, then it's not unnatural". The two are not the same statement. The fact that you continually ignore this does nothing to help your "argument".
I don't want Bush to be a topic on this thread just because I debate politics worse than I debate evolution. But I do have this to say. He acted on the intelligence (like the CIA) that he was given. He was told Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He acted to defend his country. That's all I have to say.
It isn't the same thing. You seem to have trouble understanding that I don't claim to see into Checkmate's mind; I'm not trying to tell him that he didn't see or feel something, as you're trying to tell me about myself. I'm saying that the way he interpreted it may be faulty, because he is interpreting something totally and utterly disconnected from himself - and all he can do is look at it through limited vision. He can't see beyond what is physically there. However, the fact that he saw something in his mind is not something that he has had to interpret - because he did see something, according to him - and nobody can contest that. They can't tell if he saw something, or felt something - because they don't experience in their minds what he does. What he feels is totally within himself, and he can't be told he didn't feel something. What made him feel it, though, if it comes from without himself - like a painting, or someone's voice, is not under his control, is not part of him, and so he can't say that that is a part of him and that only he will know it.
If you do not understand, then that is your problem. Checkmate himself appears to understand, however - so it seems the fault lies with you, not I.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't entirely understand. I know you're admitting that you can't see into my mind, but you are discrediting my interpretation of what I felt, saw, experienced, whatever. I don't question that you believe homosexuality is fine morally speaking. The thing is homosexuality (I'm using your logic here.) is not a part of you any more than God is a part of me. God and Christianity are a major part of my lifestyle. Homosexuality is a part of your life style. However, if I didn't exist God still would. If you didn't exist homosexuality still would.
I cannot say that you feel it's wrong. That would be a fallacious statement. I have no doubt that you feel it's right. But your feelings do not dictate universal morals. And yes, I do believe morals are absolute. Just like I believe in absolute truth. I stand not on my word, but on the word of God. You stand on your own word. I don't believe you can prove God doesn't exist.
Well, see, actually what I'm going to do is give you an official warning, as Chris has done - any more instances, and you may just risk being banned. The same goes for yeah5; Checkmate, on the other hand, appears to have stopped posting consecutively - so he receives no warning.
I'm trying to be nice and not double post, but I must ask what's the big deal about multiple posts anyway? I just don't understand everyone's beef with it. How are several posts put together any worse than one long post? Can you please explain?
Then you prove yourself the weakest person here. "Oh, I can't refute him, because he stands by what he says and argues! I must ignore him, then!" This is no way to argue - it's a fine way to lose, though. I know I said you haven't lost so far, and that you might never, given that nobody truly wins - but the fact is, you have not just stopped reply
ing - you've decided to ignore. You prove yourself weak, and unable to argue, by doing so. You prove yourself to have lost. I don't admit I'm beaten when I'm not beaten; and you telling me I have is only further proof that you know nothing of debates. You cannot just look at someone and say, "I win, you lose", because it's a fallacious claim to make. Like I said, ignore me if that's the only way you can feel like you're not failing; but by ignoring me you are only showing yourself to be doing exactly that.
Oh, and Sorovis, make no mistake - I don't listen to members who tell me what to do. Mods don't. Members listen to mods, if the mods have something to say - but mods do not do what members tell them to do. That being so, I'm now reporting your "instructive" post to the relevant place, and what happens to you after that is up to the whims of those who decide.
But that's far more proof that it is than I've received that it isn't. What proof do you have aside from biased sites that start off by saying homosexuality is wrong before trying to reach that conclusion? It's like me saying, "I think water tastes like lemon", and then conducting research - but only of the sort that gives me the desired result, and discounting all other evidence that suggests otherwise. The fact that I've been able to provide evidence of homosexual animals, and state that I never chose to be bisexual, is more in the way of evidence than has been given from the opposition (and I note that Sorovis has now changed his claims that homosexuality is not natural at all, to, "fine, animals exhibit homosexuality" - so the point is, given the lack of proof on your side, and the seeming lack of proof on mine, neither can claim the other is wrong aside from me in the fact that I can claim to know that I never chose to be bisexual. You can make similar claims about heterosexuality, and yet, you have no more evidence than I have about myself. Odd that evidence is only needed in one case and not the other - and even odder is that I know for a fact something, while you can't claim to have the same knowledge unless you, too, are bisexual or homosexual).
Ah, but saying, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone," is different from stating, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone against their will, and as long as I have permission from those who will be affected." You can't be sure that an action doesnt' harm another person, no - so can I tell you that heterosexuality is a sin and immoral because it might hurt people, as has been told to me of homosexuality?
As I said, Christians don't go with the Wiccan philosophy.
Fallacious example - you were left in charge of your younger sibling, you were left to govern whether his actions will or will not harm someone else or himself; you were left responsible. Obviously, if he burns the house down, you overestimated his trustworthiness; but that doesn't mean you burnt the house down. You may think that by leaving your brother alone, you weren't harming anyone - but only if there were no variables would this be true. A person can only do something to someone else if they give permission, and all those affected give permission. A gay man sleeping with another man is this situation - both men are consenting, and the action harms nobody uninvolved. Leaving a child at home, however, is not the same. You were left responsible - so your true guardian did not, obviously, give their permission. Besides that, the action of leaving your brother alone doesn't hurt anybody - but the variables involved, i.e., the availability of the matches, does, if he uses them irresponsibly. If you had told him that he could burn down the house if he wanted, and gave your permission, and so did your guardian, then the situation would have been comparable to two men sleeping together. But it isn't, because it isn't the act of leaving your brother alone that burns down the house. It's the fact that he found the matches, and the fact that he was alone is only indirectly related.
Actually, you misread my example. I stated that my brother was perfectly capable of watching himself. I was not responsible for him. And also, Christians don't stand on the Wiccan philosophy which is what that example was against. I'm not calling you a Wiccan, but your definition of morals matches that of Wicca. My morals don't. I don't know enough to dictate what is right and wrong. I think the Creator of the Universe knows more than I do, so I try my best to listen to him.
I would, probably, just as you would disregard ay argument I gave you based on the Vedics of India.
I'm not saying I would obey them. However, I am unfamiliar with them and wouldn't mind you quoting a bit from it. Do you hold the Vedics of India as a moral or philosophical base? However I would be disinclined to read a large post of yours centered entirely around said writings, if that was what you had in mind.
I don't mind, either - and apparently, it's okay, because Sorovis will now be ignoring my posts, not that this does him any favours.
Okay, then.
Of course, Freud's theories are not accepted by all people, whether or not they are involved in the field of psychology. Do you accept that you are subconsciously trying to replace your father and marry your mother (strangely reminiscent of my counter-claim from last time)? A psychologist can look at you demeanour, and how you behave in certain circumstances, yes - but they cannot see what you see. They can guess at what's going on in your mind, and sometimes can be quite accurate - but they cannot think your thoughts, or know what you know about yourself as you do. They never can, unless you communicate them to the psychologist him- or herself. A psychologist cannot tell you that you are now thinking about strawberry icecream and how nice it would taste mixed with passionfruit flavoured syrup, for instance. He or she can be told by you that you like that, and then they can tell you that you like that - but they cannot see your thoughts at all times. They cannot see your thoughts even as you talk with them, unless there is some physical effect from your thoughts that they can see - but even then, they cannot state your mind and tell you something you do not know or know is false.
Again, you seem to be nit-picking. If Freud's theories are not considered for the most part to be true than input any basically accepted psychology statement into that analogy.
I know what Sorovis is trying to tell me - but he has no grounds to state this for me. Only I can. Think about this for a moment - would a child look at his father or her mother, and decide that rather than being like that parent and be with someone of the opposite gender and have children, as, basically, there whole life knowledge is based on, they would be like the other parent and be with someone of the same gender as the original one they looked at (i.e., the father for the boy, the mother for the girl)? No. Why would they? Would they subsequently forget ever having decided this, given that it was contrary to all things they hold to be true in their life up till that point? No. If they did forget, why would it not be like anything else they forget - like, "Sesame Street is on in the mornings now, too - I want to watch it twice a day!", and then forgetting to get up and watch it? If it's a single moment, and you purport that I've forgotten it, then if I have, why does it hold true now? None of my other memories do - and a forgotten memory is that - forgotten. It could be thought of later, but if it's forgotten, it's gone. Perhaps you could try to argue that it was because I forgot and then had the same thought again later that I am bisexual - but then, there must be something making me have the same thought, right? Otherwise, there's the chance that I thought it once and then forgot, and then, as children do more often than not, decide something totally contrary to what they originally did.
If a child sees his father or mother kissing he is prone to close his eyes. A child does not necessarily follow what his parents do. Parents have an influence by example, but not a contorl.
And this, people, is all a big, "what if", which is false - because I know that there was no choice.
I personally have not done the research to say without a doubt that you did make a choice. I don't completely understand homosexuality. That's why I'm not fighting by my own opinions. But you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no even, series of events, or recurring tendency that could have made you more receptive to the idea of bisexuality. Humans don't know everything about themselves.
And the problem with this is that you cannot say for a fact, as you note below, that heterosexuality is what everybody starts off with. Skin, yes; heterosexuality? No. Sexuality, in general? Yes - but this does not exclude any or all variations.
Just like you cannot say for a fact that it's genetic.
Although I can state it as a fact for myself because I do know for myself; whether or not you believe it is up to you, but just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any more false for me. I can't state as a fact that someone else is the same, because I don't know. I can believe that they are, or not - but I can't say to them, "no, you don't know" - because they do. No question. I do believe that all like me who claim not to have chosen didn't choose - because like me, they assert there was no choice, and they are the only people who can assert that with any actual knowledge. I believe that you didn't choose to be heterosexual, and from what I've heard/seen, my belief is right - but really, if you can sit there and make a claim that I must have chosen, then why can I not do the same of you? There's no stopping me. And yet, I don't. Why? Because there's nothing to say that I should (I refer not to someone telling me, but to facts and figures) - there are no theories, no evidence, no proof, to tell me that I can logically tell you that you chose to be heterosexual - and there is nothing of the sort to tell you to tell me that I chose to be bisexual. The problem lies not in my logic, it seems, but in the logic that lies behind the dichotomous claims being made against me and other people.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Reply With Quote
